Use of Servant Leadership in Teaching Disadvantaged Children Essay

The achievement gap in education is the civil rights issue of our time. The achievement gap, which is derived from the standardized test scores of students, is typically representative of the statistically significant dichotomy between racial minorities (specifically, African-Americans and Hispanics) on the lower end of test scores, and whites on the higher end of test scores (edweek, 2004; NAEP, 2014). A similar divergence is thought to exist as a construct of socioeconomic status – that is, children of a lower socioeconomic status perform worse than individuals of a higher socioeconomic status (edweek, 2004). In order to understand why the achievement gap exists, Sylvia Briscoe conducted a research project to analyze children in disadvantaged neighborhoods (2015). She determined that one of the contributing factors that leads to a failed education, crime, unemployment, drug addiction, and alcohol abuse is the fact that children who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods are lacking in social capital (Briscoe, 2015). Social capital is defined as â€Å"an accumulation of social interactio...

Centralised organisation Essay

â€Å"Outline the main ways in which a large centralised organisation might achieve a more flexible organised structure. Using examples, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing greater organisational flexibility† â€Å"The structures that organisations adopt are usually aligned to one of five generic organisational structures. These are the simple structure, the functional structure, the divisional structure, the holding company structure and the matrix structure. (Capon, C. (2009) the business environment. Chapter 4: Inside organisations. This essay will explain the various ways of how a large centralised organisation achieves a more flexible structure through de-centralisation. This essay will analyse the benefits and drawbacks of the matrix structure and the functional structure. A flexible structure allows staff to take part in decision making thus making them feel more valued and motivated, this favours the organisation because efficiency and communication is improved. Centralised structures are often referred to as bureaucracies and have a long chain of command and a narrow span of control. They are tall structures designed so that directors, owners and management can achieve maximum control. Decision making is isolated within the top part of the hierarchy with a very autocratic style of management (none/very little shared decision making with employees further down the hierarchy). Centralised structures allow benchmarks and certain procedures to monitor quality closely. A clear path can be seen by employees in terms of promotion which often aids in motivation, in turn improving the productivity of staff. However there are some downsides to a centralised or bureaucratic structure, such as the fact that it’s time-consuming for decisions to be made because the decision has to come from the top of the organisation (CEO’s/Directors) all the way to the bottom through many levels before the employees actually get told what they need to do; because of this it is difficult for companies with a tall structure to quickly react to changes in the market that they operate in. In tall organisations there is a tendency for ‘red tape’ or excessive regulation which also slows down many processes within a business. Another problem with tall organisations is that there is a divide between the top managers and regular employees, which means that the workers lower down in the hierarchy feel excluded and less valued. This In turn leads to workers becoming less motivated. Because of all these difficulties big organisations are constantly attempting to increase flexibility by changing their structure. Decentralisation provides higher subordinate satisfaction and a quicker response to problems and may give workers a sense of ownership and greater levels of motivation in their work† (Ray French, Charlotte Rayner, Gary Rees and Sally Rumbles – (2008) Organizational behaviour ). De-centralised structures are desirable because they allow flexibility within a business, it is essentially a democratic management style of running an organisation, and this means that there is more feedback and input from staff regarding decision making. With a shorter chain of command, due to the flat hierarchical structure, and increased motivation of staff production can increase. The functional structure is relatively restrictive of flexibility, it is fairly rigid and centralised. The managers of the departments are given the responsibility to manage day-to-day problems and take part in decision making only in the short term. Decision making and power in the long term rests very much within the board of directors, thus slowing down communication within the organisation. The functional structure is mainly used by small businesses; large organisations tend to move away from this structure in the search for more flexibility. The reason for this is because of product or service diversification and larger target markets. The functional structure tends to have poor career prospects, high pressure on senior managers , quality monitoring is very difficult and there are skills shortages in the sense that job roles are set so skills cannot be shared within the departments. The matrix structure integrates two structures together, often geographical and multi product structures. For example, a company may have a department for a product A in Europe and for Product A in Asia. One of the advantages of the Matrix structure is the convenience of experts simplifying the sharing of knowledge between the goods. Another advantage of the matrix structure is intra-team communication, this allows ease of communication between the different functional product groups within the same organisation, and similarly there is less pressure on managers, quality monitoring is easier and skills are interchanged within departments of the same function thus improving efficiency. In the early 90’s the majority of IBM and the business press were convinced decentralisation would aid the company in terms of â€Å"flexibility, speed and entrepreneurial motivation†. They believed splitting up IBM into smaller companies would speed up processes and promote and enhance efficiency, which can be true of decentralisation. Lou Gerstner was appointed CEO of IBM in 1993. He was convinced IBM should remain centralised and to â€Å"use its unique size and capabilities to help customers integrate the diverse components of their information technology (IT) systems†. In the end IBM was loosened up but not completely decentralised. This worked tremendously well with IBM’s stock price rising by almost a factor of ten. (Thomas W. Malone – Harvard Business School Archives (29/3/2004): Making the decision to decentralise. )From this we can conclude that de-centralisation improves organisational flexibility by speeding up the process of decision making, improving efficiency and communication and increasing job satisfaction for employees. Pursuing greater organisational flexibility could be complex in the sense that the organisation may become less efficient due to the change in structure and managerial span of control. Nonetheless changing from a tall centralised structure to a flat decentralised structure favours the organisation because there are fewer levels of hierarchy and a shorter chain of command which enables better communication. â€Å"Decentralisation, in theory, provides greater potential for motivating employees and, because decisions are taken nearer the place of work, the organisation can react faster and smarter†. Ian Brookes (2009): Organisational behaviour – individuals, groups and organisation 4th edition). However not all flat structures are decentralised; take for example the functional structure, despite being flat it is a rigid and centralised structure. The Matrix structure would enable a large organisation to achieve greater organisational flexibility because one of its main strengths is allowing ease of communication.

Is I Love You in Spanish Te Amo or Te Quiero

If you want to tell someone you love him or her in Spanish, do you say te amo or te quiero? Any decent dictionary will tell you that either amar or querer (and even some other verbs such as desear, gustar and encantar) can be translated in some contexts as to love. Theres no simple answer to the question, as it depends on context as well as where in the Spanish-speaking world you are. In an appropriate context, neither te quiero nor te amo is likely to be misunderstand as a way of expressing love. But there can be some differences—some subtle, some not. What Are the Differences Between Amar and Querer? Beginning Spanish students are tempted to think that because querer is a verb that often means to want—you can go to a restaurant and tell the waiter that you want a coffee by saying quiero un cafà ©Ã¢â‚¬â€that it isnt a good word for using to express romantic love. But thats simply not true: The meanings of words vary with context, and in a romantic setting Te amo simply does not refer to wanting in the same way that a person would want a cup of coffee. Yes, querer is a verb that can be used in casual contexts, but when said in a loving relationship it can be quite powerful. Although usage can vary with locality, the fact is that querer can be used in all kinds of loving relationships (as can amar), including friendship and marriage and everything in between. And even though one its most common meanings is to want, when said in the context of a relationship it doesnt have to have the sexual overtones that something such as I want you can have. In other words, context is everything. Heres the problem with Te amo: The verb amar is a perfectly good verb for to love, but (again depending on the locality) it isnt used as much as querer in real life by most native speakers. It might come across as something someone might say in the subtitles of a Hollywood film but not something two young lovers would say in real life. It might be something your grandmother might say, or something that sounds, well, stuffy, or old-fashioned. Even so, it is frequently used in poetry and song lyrics, so it may not sound as off as the preceding may suggest. Probably the best way to be certain about which verb is best where you are is to eavesdrop on the conversations of those you to emulate. But obviously that would seldom be practical. In general, though, it can be said that the safer choice—say youre a native English speaker falling in love with an hispanohablante—is to use Te quiero. It will be understood, it will sound natural, and it will sound sincere anywhere. Of course, under these circumstances, Te amo isnt going to be misunderstood, and nobody will fault you for using it. Alternative Ways of Saying ‘I Love You’ Just as I love you in English is both the simplest and most common way of expressing affection, so are Te amo and Te quiero in Spanish. But there are other ways as well if you want to go beyond the simple. Here area four of them: Eres mi carià ±o: Carià ±o is a common term of affection; common translations include love and sweetheart, and it can also be used to refer to affection in general. It is always masculine (even when referring to a female) and conveys a feeling of warmth. Eres mi media naranja: It may sound strange call your sweetheart a half orange, which is the literal meaning of this sentence, but think of how the two pieces of a split orange might fit together. This is an informal and friendly way of calling someone your soulmate. Eres mi alma gemelo (to a male), eres mi alma gemela (to a female): This is a more formal way of calling someone your soulmate. The literal meaning is You are my soul twin. Te adoro: Translated literally as I adore you, this is a lesser used alternative to the big two. Key Takeaways Te quiero and te amo are both very common ways of saying I love you, and in a romantic situation neither is likely to be misunderstood.Querer (the verb from which quiero is derived) can mean to want, but in romantic contexts it will be understood more like love.Both querer and amar can be used for to love in nonromantic contexts, such as the love of a parent for a child.